housing assignments stanford

Housing applications are open. Here’s how to apply.

Stanford student housing assignment applications for summer quarter and the 2022-23 academic year are now open and include a new self-selection model with expanded gender options, according to a Wednesday email from Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE).

Applications for the 2022-23 academic year for all students, regardless of pre-assignment status, are due by 11:59 p.m. on April 18. All summer housing applications are due on the same day at 5 p.m. Students in need of medical accommodations must submit a Housing Accommodation Request Form to the Office of Accessible Education (OAE) before April 11 via OAE Connect , according to the email. Requests submitted after the deadline will be considered on a rolling basis.

Under the new self-selected model, students have the opportunity to select their own building and room in a two-step process. 

The new model is meant to “increase transparency in the selection process and give students more agency,” wrote Assistant Director of Undergraduate Housing Assignments Jennifer Padilla-Wong, Director of R&DE Student Housing Assignments Justin Akers and Executive Director of R&DE Student Housing Operations Imogen Hinds.

Here’s an overview of how the process works.

First, students will be prompted to submit their fall quarter housing application in Axess by April 18, at which time they will sign the University’s residence agreement, designate their housing group if desired and indicate their gender. Students can make changes to their group after submitting the application until 8 a.m. on May 16.

Students can create housing groups of up to eight people, which can include a mix of students from different class-years who live in the same neighborhood, according to the email. All members of the housing group will be given the same gate time during which they can select their housing, and the gate time will be assigned to groups based on the class years of the group members. Rising seniors receive the best gate times, and groups will receive a gate time based on the lowest class year in their group, according to the email. Students will be emailed their gate time on May 19. 

House and room selection will occur between May 23 and 27 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily and will close at 5 p.m. on May 27. Incoming student staff will not be assigned a gate time nor will students who opt to live in their Greek residence, according to the email.

During their gate time, students can log into the housing system to see which rooms are available within their neighborhood and make their selection. They can change their choice up until the May 27 deadline. Students who choose to live in Mirrielees and EVGR-A can select to live anywhere in the building, according to the email, which is a change from the original neighborhood-designated apartment model, in which each neighborhood was designated a section of each building.

Students can enter the system before their gate time to see floor plans and what rooms are available, but they may not make their selection until their gate time. 

If students do not make a selection before the May 27 deadline, they will be randomly assigned to a building and room. If students cannot make their gate time, they may designate a proxy to select housing on their behalf, according to the email. R&DE representatives advised students to select their room during their gate time because “waiting will mean fewer options are available,” they wrote. 

Students with medical accommodations and those in their housing groups will not participate in the self-selection process, according to the email. Rather, students with accommodations will be prompted to rank all the housing options within their neighborhood and any theme options. They will be assigned to housing alongside their group ahead of the general assignment process “to ensure that the student with the medical need is placed in housing that meets their needs,” according to the email. 

R&DE will use the choices denoted by the student(s) with medical needs when determining housing placements for the group in which they are included. Students assigned through this process cannot reject their housing assignment nor can they participate in the self-select process. 

The University is also “introducing a more inclusive way of considering gender in undergraduate housing,” according to R&DE representatives. Students can select one of three gender options on their housing application and can change their identification on the application up until April 18. The three options are male, female and non-binary/fluid. Students can change their gender identification each year when applying for housing, according to the email.

Rooms will be labeled in four ways: male-only rooms, female-only rooms, non-binary/fluid-only rooms and gender inclusive rooms. When students enter the housing system, they will only see rooms that match their gender identification and the gender inclusive rooms. Gender inclusive rooms will be available in each house, but the houses with gender-inclusive bathrooms will be listed here . 

Housing application gender data will not be shared within any non-housing systems, according to the email. Anonymous and aggregated housing gender data may be shared with Stanford Institutional Research and Decision Support. 

Housing applications for winter and spring quarter of the 2022-23 academic year opened on Wednesday for students who will be abroad next year. The winter quarter application is due on Oct. 28, and the spring quarter application is due Feb. 10, 2023. These students will not participate in the self-selection process and will instead rank the choices within their neighborhood. 

Coterms who are seniors and beyond may apply for either undergraduate or graduate housing, but not both, according to the email. The Grad Housing Lottery deadline is May 5.

Victoria Hsieh '24 is a Desk Editor for the Business and Technology Desk looking to major in Computer Science and minor in Political Science. She is from Seattle and thereby a caffeine and hiking fanatic. Contact The Daily’s News section at news ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.

Login or create an account

Apply to the daily’s high school summer program, priority deadline is april 14.

• JOURNALISM WORKSHOP
• MULTIMEDIA & TECH BOOTCAMPS
• GUEST SPEAKERS
• FINANCIAL AID AVAILABLE

Important updates in preparation for 2022-23 undergraduate housing assignments

University leaders provide a progress report and summarize improvements we're making guided by feedback from students.

Dear students,

THANK YOU for being a part of the first four classes to live in Stanford’s neighborhoods. Although winter quarter has just begun and the pandemic continues to challenge us, we would like to proceed with residential assignments and the RA selection process for the 2022-23 academic year. The first phase of building residential communities for next year starts on Jan. 12 with the opening of residential student staff selection. Keep an eye on your email for more details.

In preparation, we want to share (1) progress to date with our transition to neighborhoods, (2) adjustments we’re making to respond to challenges students have helped to identify, and (3) long-term plans.

Progress to Date

With your help, here’s what we’ve achieved in the first few months of neighborhoods (learn more via this web resource ) :

• Our frosh have expressed enthusiasm about their housing assignments this year, with 97.5% of our frosh having been placed in their first choice.*
• For this academic year, we created 11 all-sophomore dorms to help the Class of ’24 get to know each other and had 450 sophomores participate in the roommate matching process.
• We provided more access to the Row for juniors and seniors. The Row is 93% juniors and older this year, as compared to 75% in the 2019-2020 academic year.
• Juniors and seniors had more access to apartment style living than ever before.
• We supported disability accommodations in more houses and dining halls than in past years.

*This does not include late admit students.

Addressing Challenges

• Neighborhood Life: We have heard that you are eager to have a richer experience and more opportunities to come together within each neighborhood, even if your neighborhood’s buildings are far apart. We agree! This winter, we are launching neighborhood community councils , which will take the lead on creating opportunities for the residents of each neighborhood to come together. They have dedicated funding for house and neighborhood events, and late night and weekend programming. Would you like to get involved in helping the students in your neighborhood come together? Fill out this interest form to be a part of your community council by Thursday, Jan. 13.
• Moving Branner from Neighborhood F to Neighborhood N , which will allow Crothers complex to have one building (Crothers) devoted to all-frosh, and one building (Crothers Memorial) devoted to upperclass students. If you are currently living in Branner, don’t worry. Your home neighborhood will remain Neighborhood F for next year. In addition, Lantana will become an all-frosh dorm.
• Adelfa & Loro will be transitioned from all-frosh houses to upperclass houses.
• We will be switching this year’s all-soph housing to upperclass housing to provide more options for upperclass students within each neighborhood.
• In addition, Adams will be shifting from all-frosh to upperclass.
• Also, If you are assigned to apartment style housing (EVGR-A or Mirrielees) next year, you will be able to select any apartment within the building instead of being restricted to specific floors/floor segments. This will allow seniors to have access to the best apartments in all of EVGR-A and Mirrielees (after disability accommodation assignments). Apartments will continue to be assigned to students from the same neighborhood. Friends from other neighborhoods will now be able to be next-door neighbors.
• As we are able, we will work to decrease the number of triples in Mirrielees and EVGR-A.
• Balancing Neighborhoods: Students have shared concerns that there is an imbalance across neighborhoods regarding access to premier living spaces for upperclass students and access to the Row for specific neighborhoods. We reviewed all of the neighborhoods with this concern in mind, and found that Neighborhood A had the least access to premier living spaces for upperclass students and to the Row, while Neighborhood N had the most. To address this imbalance, we will be moving Pluto and 650 Mayfield from Neighborhood N to Neighborhood A. We know that this will be a disappointment for some of the residents living in Neighborhood N, but we believe it is the most fair distribution of housing for all students. Current residents of Pluto and 650 Mayfield will continue to have Neighborhood N as their home neighborhood next year.

As we develop the neighborhoods for the long term, what we will pursue next

• Building linkages between the first-year curriculum on Civic, Liberal and Global Education and the neighborhoods.
• Working to determine long-term names for the neighborhoods.
• Designing how we can reconfigure the use of common area spaces to provide students more room to gather and be creative in their neighborhoods.
• Working to develop a building and fundraising plan for new and enhanced facilities.

We look forward to working with you to develop your neighborhood homes!

Cheryl Brown Assistant Vice Provost for Residential Education

Susie Brubaker-Cole Vice Provost for Student Affairs

Sarah Church Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

Shirley Everett Senior Associate Vice Provost for Residential & Dining Enterprises Senior Adviser to the Provost on Equity and Inclusion

Imogen Hinds Executive Director for Residential & Dining Enterprises Student Housing Operations

Tim Warner Vice Provost for Budgets and Auxiliaries Management

Taking Care of Ourselves & Each Other

Health & Well-Being

Pre-Assignment

Students apply for university theme houses through the Pre-Assignment process. Some of Stanford's on-campus residences offer special academic, cultural, social, or leadership programs, while other residences are co-ops. Co-ops offer a space where  the cooking and cleaning for residents is performed by the students who live in the house.

Application Timeline

• Monday, April 1:  Pre-Assignment applications for University Theme Houses open (1:00 p.m. PST)
• Wednesday, April 10:  Pre-Assignment applications close (1:00 p.m. PST)
• Wednesday, May 15:  University Theme House pre-assignment placements announced

More About Pre-Assignment

One of the core tenets of the housing assignments process is to support these unique residential programs through the University Theme House Pre-Assignment process.

Students who want to live in a residence with a University Theme House can come together with other students to create a community committed to exploring a topic, lifestyle, or culture.

To learn more about Pre-Assignment, please explore the following links. 

Application Process

Here you'll find information detailing the process of applying for pre-assignment. 

Participating Houses

Explore the different types of houses that participate in Pre-Assignment, find out about open houses, and more. 

Frequently Asked Questions

We've set up this FAQ to help clarify the pre-assignment process for all who are interested.

Housing Assignment Accommodations

Main navigation.

Housing Assignment Accommodations are provided with regards to the specific location and/or room type (e.g., wheelchair accessible) to which a student with a disability needs to be assigned.  Housing Assignment Accommodations may include:

• location on campus (e.g., center of campus, etc.)
• type of room (e.g., single, wheelchair accessible, etc.)
• type of house (e.g., small house, large dormitory setting, etc.)

The following links provide additional information about the housing accommodation request process:

• Residential & Dining Enterprises
• Graduate Housing Lottery
• OAE Undergraduate Housing Assignments
• OAE Graduate Housing Lottery

NOTE : To request housing accommodations you must submit a Housing Accommodation Request Forms (HARF). HARF's are available to students registered with the OAE at  OAE | CONNECT . Log in to  OAE | CONNECT  and click on the "Housing & Dining Gear" for more information. The OAE will continue to accept requests for disability-related housing accommodations on a rolling basis.

Students should contact the OAE as soon as possible as timely notice is needed to coordinate accommodations.   Similarly, it is the student's responsibility to notify the OAE as early as possible as to any problems experienced in the obtaining of housing accommodations and services.

• Student Housing Operations
• Stanford Conferences
• Stanford Dining, Hospitality & Auxiliaries
• Maintenance Operations & Capital Projects
• Finance & Administration
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Strategic Communications & Marketing
• R&DE Calendar
• Capital Projects
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging
• Sustainability Accomplishments and News
• Sustainability Awards
• Sustainability by R&DE Division
• Sustainable Food in R&DE
• Sustainability Interns
• Sustainable Living
• Living in Housing Overview
• Residence Agreement
• Housing Service Centers
• Preparing to Move In
• Now You're Home
• Dining Options
• Mail & Deliveries
• Sublicensing in Graduate Housing
• Stanford Guest House

Hello, we see you are using Firefox to view this website. In order to view background videos on several pages, please enable "Autoplay" for this site.

To do so, click the Autoplay icon right next to the field for entering website addresses, and select "Allow Audio and Video" (see screenshot above).

This will allow this site to play all background videos, but will not affect any other websites. You will need to refresh your browser for the setting to take effect.

Once you dismiss this message, it will not be shown again.

R&DE Student Housing: Contact Us

R&de student housing assignments.

Phone: (650)  725-2810 Questions? Send us a Help Ticket anytime. Regular Office Hours*  Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Wednesday: 10:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

*The Housing Assignments Office is closed daily from noon - 1 p.m.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Moscow's suburbs may look monolithic, but the stories they tell are not

At the end of the 1950s, the Soviet Union began the largest experiment in industrialised housing in history. Owen Hatherley visits three of Moscow’s resulting mikrorayons , where the majority of Muscovites still live today

T he public square just off 60 th Anniversary of October Street in the Moscow suburb of Novye Cheryomushki (“New Cherry Town”) is a very ordinary, if unusually placid, place. Trees, playgrounds, benches, mothers pushing prams and the odd middle-aged boozer circle around a small statue of Lenin . Beyond them, the four-storey apartment blocks look a little worn.

The sense of quiet torpor here is fitting given that Russians call their suburbs “sleeping districts” – not much more than cubicles to come home to at the end of a day’s work. Yet Novye Cheryomushki is certainly one of the more attractive places to sleep, and live, with low-rise buildings, lots of social facilities, and a metro station nearby. It is also the common ancestor of every mikrorayon (“micro-district”) in Moscow; the forefather of nearly every suburb in the capital and far beyond.

For the centre of Novye Cheryomushki bears witness to an extraordinary architectural competition between seven blocks of flats. Each of these seven blocks, built in 1958 at record speed, employs a different prefabricated construction system, usually of concrete panels slotted into place like toy building blocks. Each was assessed on expense and speed of construction, and then one lucky block of flats, codenamed “K7” , was chosen as the winner.

K7’s reward was to be replicated in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, all across the Soviet Union. Thus began the largest experiment in industrialised housing in history, where homes would become mass-produced commodities like cars, fridges and TVs. Industrialised housing comprised 75% of all Soviet housing stock by 1991 – this is where the overwhelming majority of Muscovites live; not in the Tsarist-Stalinist oligarchgrad within the inner city, nor the hipster enclaves of Chistye Prudy or Gorky Park. These suburbs may look monolithic, but the stories they tell are not.

The programme was necessitated by the housing catastrophe that the Soviet Union faced by the 1950s. The Russian Empire was 80% rural in 1917, but under Stalin the fastest and probably most brutal industrial revolution in history was forced through between 1929 and 1940 . Moscow filled with rural migrants fleeing a famine-ridden countryside to work in the new factories. Many lived in barracks, basements, tents, even trenches. This housing crisis was barely under control when the war compounded the problem, with the Third Reich’s war of extermination against the USSR making millions homeless.

However, attempts to redress this under Stalin were almost whimsical. Grandiose, richly decorated apartment blocks were built lining wide, Haussmannesque boulevards; enormous resources were diverted into skyscraping luxury hotels, or grace-and-favour flats for artists and bureaucrats. The first independent act of Nikita Khrushchev after becoming General Secretary on Stalin’s death was to force through a decree “On Architectural Excess”, demanding industrialised construction rather than bespoke masterpieces as a means of solving the crisis.

The solution began just to the south of Moscow, in the former village of Cheryomushki. Vast neoclassical apartment blocks still line the main roads here – talking about living in one of these Stalin-era apartments , architectural student Konstantin Budarin says “they fulfil my idea of dignity”, with their high ceilings and grandeur. However, the money for the more flamboyant features clearly soon ran out – decorative pilasters stop half-way up or are outlined in brick; grand archways lead to scuzzy courtyards.

The contrast between the Stalinist boulevards and the first parts of Novye Cheryomushki is striking. Around Akademicheskaya metro station, the apartment blocks are lower and simpler, and the inbetween spaces are full of fountains and benches rather than afterthoughts behind grand facades. When first built, Novye Cheryomushki also featured an abundance of public space and public buildings: health centres, creches, schools, cinemas, libraries, theatres and clubs.

It’s difficult to exaggerate just how huge a social advance this was for Muscovites; not only in the sense of amenities, but also in that a private life was now possible, after three decades where the majority had been living in cramped communal flats, one family to a room or worse.

Initially, each mikrorayon was planned with all of this included, all to equally standard designs. An instant prefabricated community on this scale had not been attempted anywhere in the world, and visitors flocked to see it. Shostakovich composed an operetta titled after the district , satirising Muscovites’ desperate desire to move there; it was adapted into a colour film in 1963. Built in the year of Sputnik, it seemed to suggest the Soviet way of doing things – an egalitarian, centrally planned, mass-production economy – was getting results.

And a certain nostalgia for those days still pervades – we visited on Mayday, when residents were enjoying the day off and public billboards were stuffed with Soviet-nostalgic paraphernalia, or posters for the upcoming Victory Day (though that sort of bombast felt rather incongruous in this easy, sociable space).

Each mikrorayon was meant to have a factory, an institute or both; the risk that they would become dormitory suburbs was realised early on, and here, at least, it was partially prevented. Around the Novye Cheryomushki metro station are several research institutes, moved or founded here in the 1960s.

Cheryomushki was not just a “sleeping district” but a hub of the USSR’s scientific-military-industrial complex: the centrepiece was the Institute of Scientific Information of Social Sciences Library, the Soviet equivalent of the Library of Congress, reached from the street by a concrete bridge over a (long-since drained) lake. Adjacent is the tower of the Central Economic Mathematical Institute, one of the drivers of the Soviet central planning system – a glass grid by architect Leonid Pavlov with a colourful Möbius strip sculpture set into the middle floors.

The shift of the urban economy from production to speculation has invaded this carefully arranged space in recent years and smashed up its order, with a dozen 30-storey towers with pitched roofs crashing into the open space around, creating a looming, claustrophobic feel; the sense that planning has been abandoned here and it’s everyone for themselves.

Indeed, Moscow’s suburbs have faced extreme levels of “infill” development in the last 10-15 years, with immense towers shoved into the parks and gardens of the mikrorayons, throwing flats into darkness and obliterating the communal amenities. One new tower is even crammed into the small square between the Central Economic Mathematical Institute tower and the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences Library, blocking out its light.

The latter suffered a catastrophic fire in January , described by the head of the Academy of Sciences as the academic equivalent of the Chernobyl disaster. Over a million priceless volumes were damaged. The fire was ascribed to an electrical fault, but given the intensity of development around it, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to suspect foul play. You could easily imagine the original attempts at making this something more than a suburb being erased in a decade or two, as it is turned into a commuter district like any other.

Novye Cheryomushki’s pioneering status makes it a little different from the Soviet norm. That begins a couple of stops south on the metro, at the mikrorayon of Belyayevo , developed from the 1960s onwards. This really is a quintessential “sleeping district”. From hereon, the original notion of self-contained districts with their own identity was watered down as a numbers game took over.

The “winning” square panel at Cheryomushki is extended here into long slabs, tall towers and squat maisonettes – unrelieved by any variation or individuality whatsoever, without an obvious centre, and with relatively sparse social facilities compared to its predecessor.

Off the main road, where they survive, the green spaces are Belyayevo’s saving grace; enclosing schools , ponds and park benches. This seems like a place where it would be great to be six – there’s loads of free open space and playgrounds to play in – and a boring place to be 16.

Belyayevo has, though, become a minor cause celebre after the Moscow-based Polish architect Kuba Snopek submitted it to Unesco as a potential entry on the World Heritage list , on the basis that most of the “Moscow Conceptualists” – artists and thinkers such as Boris Groys, Dmitri Prigov and Ilya Kabakov – lived and worked here in the 1970s.Their famous 1974 “ Bulldozer Exhibition ”, broken up by police, took place in one of Belyayevo’s empty spaces.

The idea of listing the district is, of course, akin to one of the Conceptualists’ knowing jokes: to argue that the true “hipster” district of Moscow, the real “arts incubator”, was a mundane concrete suburb. Nonetheless, it is still part of the capital with all its draws, its centre reachable easily from the Metro.

Indeed, one of Belyayevo’s resident artists described taking his young son to the historic centre of Moscow for the first time, and getting an unexpected response: “It’s dark and scary here, can we go back to our Belyayevo where everything is green and open?’

Severnoye Chertanovo

There are thousands of Belyayevos, but there is only one Severnoye Chertanovo. You can tell something is different as soon as you get off the metro here; while the stations in Belyayevo and Cheryomushki are as standardised as the housing, Chertanovskaya station is a return to the strange, opulent dreamworld created under Moscow during the Stalin era. Architect Nina Alyoshina’s hall is a moodily-lit expressionist cathedral that speaks of arrival at somewhere special, not of departure to the centre.

Outside, apartment blocks spread around a large lake. Half of these are standardised in the Belyayevo mould, but the other half are mid-rise buildings arching around artificial hills and valleys, connected by glazed skyways. Looking closely, you can see they’re also made of standardised panels, but arranged in such a way to give variety to the buildings; this is the first of the mikrorayons where you can really speak of “architecture” rather than just engineering.

Photographer Yuri Palmin has lived in Chertanovo for 18 years – first in what he calls the “bad”, standardised blocks ; then in the more prestigious, bespoke blocks opposite. He points out that the area not only looks unlike the other mikrorayons, it has a totally different layout. Rather than the interchangeable units for nuclear families, there are “42 different kinds of single and double-level flats, with winter gardens in the ground floors” within these long complexes .

This was a late attempt under Brezhnev to show that “developed socialism” could have room for different kinds of families and lives: “a sign of hope, a training ground and a lab”. After getting the population out of overcrowded, subdivided communal flats and into purpose-built apartments with their own front doors, the planned economy could finally move from “quantity” to “quality”. Except that this transition never happened on a large scale, and the standardised apartment blocks were being rolled out to the edges of Moscow up until the end of the 1980s.

It is often assumed that standardisation was ended by the capitalist “shock therapy” that was applied to Russia’s planned economy in the early 1990s. Yet new apartment blocks built into the interstices of the mikrorayons since then are still industrialised; still pieced together from concrete panels – albeit with silly decorative roofs to give a shallow impression of individuality. Even the Orthodox church built near the lake in the late 1990s is standardised in its thin, tacky application of old Russian details.

What has changed, however, is two things: space, with communal areas now regarded as parcels of land ripe for development, and speculation, with a vibrant property market in the capital generating fortunes for a few and insecurity for most.

Dominating Severnoye Chertanovo today is a 40-storey monolith called Avenue 77 . According to Palmin, this giant apartment block limits light for many residents here for much more than “a few hours in summer”. It tries to break up its enormous grid of standardised flats via a Koolhaas-like “iconic” shape, but nobody could be seriously fooled; this is form following speculation, an image of public space and equality being crushed by speculation.

In the 1990s, when looking at the apparently interchangeable districts produced by Communism, critics didn’t see, or ignored, the libraries, the childcare centres, the parks and the treatment of housing as a basic and free human right; and instead saw merely those huge, inescapable, interchangeable monoliths – the slabs upon slabs that always strike the casual viewer driving from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport to its centre. These critics argued that this monumental uniformity was the greatest possible indictment of the system: a rigid plan that assumed everyone wanted the same thing, while giving them a mass-produced product that few really desired.

The assumption was that the free market would result in variety, liveliness and complexity. What actually happened was a property boom that took over Russia’s three or four biggest cities, and a grim decline everywhere else.

And how did they build for that boom? In Moscow’s city centre, some specially-commissioned edifices speak of the rarefied or outre tastes of the new elite – but in its suburbs, the main change was simply that apartment blocks became bigger, longer and more careless of public space. They were still, though, built via the methods that the newly privatised construction companies had learnt well in the “good old days”.

The ideals of Novye Cheryomushki may have died, but its methods and techniques remain – having managed to make some people very wealthy. Moscow suburbia is not so much the remnants of a great experiment, perhaps, but suburbia like any other suburbia – a place of dreams and boredom, great ideas being implemented and then slowly crushed.

• Guardian Moscow week
• Architecture
• Moscow holidays
• Russia holidays
• Urbanisation

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Quality of Education as a Neighborhood Characteristic Determining Housing Prices: Evidence from Moscow City

The study reviews pricing models in the real estate market of Moscow, which include the quality of education provided at local schools, as well as attempts to estimate the impact made by education quality on the apartment prices. The paper reveals significant dependence between apartment prices and quality of education provided at schools assigned to the residence houses. Availability of a private school significantly affects the apartment price.

Related Papers

Journal of Housing Economics

Donald Haurin

Andrew Leigh

This paper investigates the relationship between housing prices and the quality of public schools in the Australian Capital Territory. To disentangle the effects of schools and other neighbourhood characteristics on the value of residential properties, we compare sale prices of homes on either side of high school attendance boundaries. We find that a 5 percentage point increase in test scores (approximately 1 SD) is associated with a 3.5 per cent increase in house prices.

Journal of Urban Economics

Thomas Downes

Land Use Policy

Darshana Rajapaksa

Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER)

Gbolahan S Osho

Aleksey Kabakov

In our research, we have focused on the degree of influence of different factors on prices of real estate objects in the Moscow secondary real estate market. In the first stage of work, we have successfully solved the data processing issues using the means of IT-technologies. In the second stage, we have constructed the model in accordance with the hedonic pricing approach. In the third stage, we have tested and confirmed all stated hypotheses: Apart from hypothesis testing, coefficient analysis of constructed models gave the following additional results: 1) Kitchen space is the most valued by the owners of bed-sitters followed by the owners of 4-rooms apartments. 2) The most important factor for the price of real estate object is the total square. 3) The distance to the center is the most valued by the owners of 4-room apartments. 4) There is an overall decrease in prices in 2009 year presumably caused by the Credit Crunch ’07 – ’08. Then there had been the recovery period till 2012 and stable growth after. The most expensive segment (4-room apartments) has least suffered from the consequences of the crisis. The 1-room flats were hit most heavily. The constructed equations can be further used by the government in renovation program to calculate the fair characteristics of exchangeable flats. We think this feature can additionally motivate people to participate in the program as they will get an opportunity to choose the new flat based on the parameters they prefer (Total square, Kitchen square, Location, Distance to the metro or the center etc.) Our data have poorly described the bed-sitters market. We think that some additional factors can influence this market. It will be interesting in the future to expand the analysis to primary real estate market and also to include Moscow region and to increase the number of factors influencing the price. The results of such research will give more precise valuation of the price structure on Moscow real estate market.

Kathy Hayes

Abukar Warsame

The issue of schools and their capitalization in property values has been analyzed extensively. Our contribution is to analyze this effect in an alternative institutional context. In this case study, we analyzed the housing market in Stockholm, Sweden. What distinguishes the Swedish school system is that we have a free choice of schools, which means that a family does not necessarily have to live in a school district to access the schools in that area. This means that families do not have to move to the district to which they intend to send their children but can apply to send them there regardless of whether they live there or not. Nevertheless, families might be interested in living close to good schools to be within walking distance of these schools. This is especially true at the primary school level. Therefore, we analyzed schools’ capitalization in property values in the context of free school choice. We used data on transaction prices for condominiums in Stockholm’s inner cit...

Amy E Ellen Schwartz , Keren Horn

While "school choice" has attracted much attention from policymakers and researchers, virtually all of the research has focused on understanding how changing school choice affects student academic performance. There is, in contrast, little work examining how weakening the link between residential location and school options affects property values - despite the well accepted theoretical (and empirical) link between schools and housing. In this paper, we begin to close this gap by examining how the introduction of new "choice" schools affects house prices and, particularly, the link between school quality and neighborhood house prices. Our study utilizes rich data on New York City public elementary schools geo-coded and matched to data on property sales for a fifteen-year period beginning in 1988. To identify the impact of a choice school on the capitalization of school quality into housing values we rely on a triple difference methodology. First we incorporate a boundary discontinuity approach, similar to Black (1999) to compare the capitalization of school quality into housing prices of buildings that are close to one another but in different elementary school attendance zones. We rely on smaller and smaller distances from the boundary to test the stability of our results. Second, we compare housing units that are within 3,000 feet of a choice school to housing units outside of these rings. Third, we take advantage of choice school openings to look at the capitalization rates before and after the choice school opens. We find that the proximity of alternative school choices does weaken the link between zoned schools and property values. The opening of a choice school reduces the capitalization of test scores from zoned schools into housing values by approximately one third.

RELATED PAPERS

Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances

Corie Ralston

Metallurgical Transactions A

Shinn-Tyan Wu

Fabrizio Stracci

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing

Håkan Thorsén

Paul Luckham

Aizman Roman

Michel Riaudel

lorence collins

Karin Komati

Pintu Lohar

LUIS EDUARDO TORRES GARCÍA

iis kholisah

Sigríður Tulinius

Gustaf Josua

Abdimas Galuh

Nurul Jannah Lailatul Fitria

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

P. Demoulin

Indo. J. Chem. Res.

Boy Baunsele

Tydskrif vir letterkunde

Anthea Van Jaarsveld

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications

trang nguyen

Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Ethics-Law and History

Merve Babalıoğlu

Eunice Lumsden

Journal of Virology

Núria Verdaguer

Journal of Petroleum Geology

Patrick Shannon

Neonatology

Jennifer Wan

Archives of Virology

Mohammad Kayesh

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024